Words as Weapons
Simon Sheppard delves deeper than the dictionary
Started at HMP Wolds and published in Heritage & Destiny magazine, July 2013
Racist scum. That’s us. Neo-nazis polluting innocent minds with our intolerant fascist hate-creed. Nationalism undoubtedly has its share of oddballs, though in truth the same can be said of any marginal political movement. Whatever our faults, nationalists to a man share one distinct, redeeming quality: the independence of mind to withstand the onslaught of invective, much of it subliminal, put abroad by the state, its foot-soldiers the extreme left and the media.
That segment of the population which is susceptible to manipulation by the mass media, especially advertising, is called the admass. It can be said with certainty that we are not of it.
Less than a century ago racial differences were regarded as blatantly obvious, and anyone claiming that a primitive hut-dweller was our equal would have been greeted with hoots of derision. Now it is us that are the target, not of amused mockery, but of vilification. Even academics fear to report easily measurable racial differences in traits such as intelligence. Further, in the specialised field of intelligence testing, several types of intelligence are acknowledged.
Somehow a convoluted mindset has taken root, where it is wrong to discriminate – except against “racists” who discriminate. How has this come about? What power have these words anyway?
Words can have great power, when they are imbued with emotion using propaganda and contrasting views are suppressed. Millions discovered the power of this method of manipulation during the Stalin era. Objective studies on this theme are conspicuously absent, but if such books were written then the textbook example would be the Russian word kulak. Originally meaning “tight fist” it had an ambiguous interpretation: it could either denote meanness, or the same tight fist could be enveloping and protective.
The kulaks in pre-Communist Russia were smallholders in an age when routine farm work required many hands. Kulaks typically tended a small parcel of land and employed a handful of peasants, with the surplus of their crops being sold to feed the wider population. With their large numbers, kulaks formed the backbone of Russian agriculture.
As we know, quashing independence from the state is the standard Marxist modus operandi. Hence as part of this policy Stalin made kulak a term of abuse. Groups of activists fired by Party rhetoric (and the prospect of rich pickings) would strike out for the countryside, often after a night of drink, to rape and murder a farming family. Official collectivisation squads scoured the countryside to seize farms and transport kulaks to labour camps. Kulaks were understandably opposed to having their livelihood taken from them, but the number of people classed as kulaks expanded until it became a universal label for any critic of the Communist regime. Anti-kulak sentiment became so fervent that Stalin was eventually moved to curtail it, using the by-now well-established method of having some of his more enthusiastic activists shot. At one of the wartime conferences Stalin admitted to Churchill that ten million died during this period. Some historians have given higher estimates. Remember that this was pre-WWII, in peacetime, and the victims were Stalin’s own countrymen. This, then, can be the power of a word.
While “kulak” had its meaning altered in pursuit of a political agenda, in racism we have a word which was imbued with emotion from the start. The original usage of race was similar to kind or type, as in “the policeman and his race” or “the race of poets.” Its exclusive application to human genotypes is a very recent development. Today, an “anti-racist” ethos has been instituted using black propaganda techniques which would have made Stalin proud. How this has been achieved is the central theme of this article.
My aim is to draw together various strands to bring us toward a fuller understanding of our current situation. This is a topic which is neglected in mainstream discourse, yet is a supremely important component in the battle for minds which we hope one day to win. Right, testable against the immutable laws of nature, is on our side. It is only by the evolutionarily unprecedented power of the mass media and the propaganda techniques described here that our cause has been marginalised.
To begin, we briefly survey the origins of “racism.” Trotsky (Lev Davidovich Bronstein) used racistov in his History of the Russian Revolution, appearing in English in 1932. H. G. Wells described his early self as a “racist” in his rambling autobiography published in 1934. “Racism” was also used in Coming American Fascism by L. Dennis, appearing in 1936. However its most significant usage, enabling the word to pick up enough momentum to enter the language, was probably by German Jew Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935), because it was actually the title of a book. Racismus was published in German in 1934. Hirschfeld is also attributed with coining the term “transvestite.”
Hirschfeld has been described as sex-obsessed, and it is easy to see why. He founded an ‘Institute for Sexual Science’ in Berlin and was a vocal campaigner for the legalisation of homosexuality. This was clearly not the most prudent of causes to champion at a time when the NSDAP was at the peak of its popularity in Germany. Hirschfeld’s previous books, published in English, included The Transvestites: The Erotic Drive to Cross-Dress (1910), Homosexuality of Men and Women (1922) and Men and Women: The World Journey of a Sexologist (1933). One of the common photographs of Nazi book-burning is of the contents of the Hirschfeld library. It was probably the conditions prevailing in Germany which inspired Hirschfeld’s departure from his favourite themes of sex and homosexuality.
In 1938, three years after Hirschfeld died of a heart attack in France, an English translation of Racismus appeared as Racism. Its publisher was Victor Gollancz, founder and manager of the Left Book Club, distributing such classics as Sydney and Beatrice Webb’s eulogy to Stalinist Communism (the Webbs had visited Soviet Russia and had the wool pulled very firmly over their eyes). Gollancz is on record as saying “Of all the evils I hate, I think I hate nationalism the most.” Mass murder, child prostitution, torture of harmless furry animals – all were topped, in Gollancz’s mind, by wanting the world to stop at one’s border. Gollancz’s pronouncement was mentioned in the Times of 16 January 2012: there doesn’t appear to be a reference to it anywhere else.
In fact “racism” did not fall into anything like common usage until the 1960s. Much of the modern antipathy to racial discourse can be attributed to one individual, Gerald Ronson (originally Aaronson). His role is detailed in Peter Rushton’s review of Ronson’s autobiography in H&D issue 38. Unsurprisingly, in the book itself his more ignominious enterprises are played down or omitted entirely.
Ronson started as a property speculator, later developed the Heron chain of filling stations, and for decades poured funds into the “anti-fascist” and “anti-racist” movement. He was the chief fund-raiser for the notorious 62 Group, a violent activist group led by Cyril Paskin which specialised in assaulting lone nationalists on their way to and from political meetings. Another of the group’s tactics was attacks on venues, designed to intimidate proprietors and make these locations unavailable to groups they regarded as political opponents. By 1962 both Ronson and Paskin had convictions for their violent activities. Members of the 62 Group were also caught burgling David Irving’s home in 1963 and shortly after executing an arson attack on Tony Hancock’s Print Factory in 1981. The car in which they were making their escape broke down, at which point its number plates were identified as false.
The 62 Group evolved into the Searchlight organisation, circulating the names, addresses and workplaces of nationalists for targeting by “anti-fascists” and generally causing difficulties for them. In 1990 Ronson was convicted for his part in the Guinness shares swindle.
After a cushy six months in an open prison (reading his book you’d think it was a five-year stretch in Belmarsh), Ronson embarked on a deliberate campaign to gain respectability. He and his accomplices “would have meetings every week where we developed plans of action – less thuggish, less violent, more intellectual and more devious.” In 1994, with funding from Marks & Spencer, Ronson helped create the Community Security Trust. This is a private security organisation with over fifty full-time staff maintaining extensive files on any individual deemed “anti-Semitic.” Despite his criminal and organised anti-white industry Ronson received a CBE in the 2012 New Year honours list.
Beside the activities of Hirschfeld, Gollancz and Ronson, how has “anti-racism” gained such a foothold? It obviously provides a trump card that even the most imbecilic interloper can play. Plus, it is characteristic of Occidentals that they apply moral, and by extension legal, absolutes. In this mindset, moral laws are conceived in the abstract and must be always wrong or always right. Our law-makers deliver rulings, God-like, for universal application. For example, the law states that killing another person is illegal, regardless of who does it or why. When a baby is born severely deformed and facing a lifetime of suffering, it is hardly ever suggested that the arguments are so complex, the balance between the two evils so fine, and the personal circumstances so variable that it is simply not possible for anyone to make a proscription which is appropriate in every case. By the same moral universality, “equal in the eyes of God” is extended to “equal.”
More down-to-earth peoples without this yearning for moral absolutes adopt a more pragmatic approach. Mexicans routinely flout an unpopular law. Even in continental Europe, many EU regulations are subverted by bureaucratic or other means. There are numerous examples of Britain slavishly following EU directives which other member states avoid. In Berlin, supposedly the heart of the EU beast, patrons in bars can smoke.
Probably the most subtle and effective form of propaganda is the portrayal of a false consensus, the defining of a bogus normality – because we should never confuse “usual” with “normal.” In this false consensus racialists are given a noxious taint. Doesn’t everyone, from political commentators to the characters in The Archers, echo the mantra that “racism” is bad? And it is a sin which only whites can commit. Several writers have explored this theme but the following is the best of the best. This is Samuel Francis in ‘The Origins of “Racism”: The Curious Beginnings of a Useless Word’ in American Renaissance, May 1999:
‘Racism’ is a term originating on the left, and has been so defined and loaded with meanings the left want it to have that it cannot now be used by the supporters of white racial consciousness for any constructive purpose. Anyone who uses the term to describe himself or his own views has already allowed himself to be maneuvered onto his opponents’ ground and has already lost the debate... Hirschfeld’s polemic also makes clear the uselessness of the word for any other purpose. No one seems ever to have used the word to describe his own ideas or ideas with which he agrees; its only application has been by the enemies of the ideas it purports to describe, and hence it has no objective meaning apart from its polemical usage.
Witness the gyrations of the BNP in its attempts to gain acceptance in mainstream politics by claiming that it is “not racist.” As soon as the word is used, any such attempt is doomed.
It seems certain then that the term “racism” can be attributed to Trotsky, Hirschfeld, Gollancz and Ronson. Similarly “stereotype,” originally a printing term, was first used as a metaphor for human types by Walter Lippman in his Public Opinion in 1922. Raphael Lemkin coined the term “genocide” in 1944. This pattern is consistent with observations, notably by Kevin MacDonald, of Jews’ high verbal intelligence.
A revealing comparison can be made with the Hebrew word shibboleth. This describes “a saying that is widely used or a belief that is widely held, especially one that interferes with somebody’s ability to speak or think about things without preconception.” The strong Jewish influence in the media coupled with their verbal dexterity has led to the control of our language. The degree of that control is illustrated by another term which is ripe for examination, “anti-Semitism.” This phrase, now ubiquitous, might have been expressly intended to sow confusion. Arabs are Semites, while most modern-day Jews are not.
It is not courting controversy to say that Jews are keenly aware of persecution – it features in their own lore extensively. Recently for example the grandchildren of “Holocaust survivors” have been reported copying the camp tattoos of their elderly relatives. What is (made) controversial is speculation about the degree of that persecution, and its origins. Notwithstanding, these contentious aspects are irrelevant to an evolutionary psychological analysis. What is of pressing interest are the counter-measures which would inevitably evolve from a perception of persecution, whether that perception was accurate or not. These counter-measures might commonly be called “defence mechanisms” but this term can be inappropriate, as we shall see.
Evolutionary psychology might be dubbed the “push-me-I’ll-push-back” school of behaviour analysis because, rather like Newton’s Third Law of Motion, a strategy operating over evolutionary time-scales will invariably stimulate the evolution of an opposing mechanism. (Some procedures appear much more rapidly, but then it is the capacity for adaptation which has evolved over millions of years.) Procedures evolve to increase the benefit of already successful strategies and to compensate for handicaps. This is the origin of many female policies. Because females lack physical strength, the female always loses any conflict which has escalated to the use of force or violence. Hence many female behaviours have evolved to compensate for this limitation.
Some female procedures involve transduction: inducing a false feeling. Transduction is a good example, pertinent in several ways, because it appears that populations vary greatly in their capacity to transduce and their susceptibility to it. Although transduction can be positive or negative, the most common form is negative, especially the induction of false guilt.
For the evolutionary origin of transduction we imagine an angry, prehistorical caveman, close to striking out at his wife (maybe she is one of several). If he does, her injuries could be debilitating or perhaps even fatal. However if she were to bring up some past event, distorted or exaggerated for the purpose, to shame and distract her enraged husband, she will likely escape the beating.
Jewry has traditionally been “a nation apart” and a preoccupation with race, separateness, and categorisation is evident. Invented terms like “racism,” “stereotype” and “genocide” probably arise out of this ethnocentrism and keen sensitivity to persecution. We can even quote from the psychological canon. Ernest Jones, Freud’s British biographer, observed “how extraordinarily suspicious Jews could be of the faintest sign of anti-Semitism and of how many remarks or actions could be interpreted in that sense.” Of Freud himself, Jones wrote that “he had the common Jewish sensitiveness to the slightest hint of anti-Semitism and he made very few friends who were not Jews.”
If the awareness of persecution is excessive, and action is taken based on that perception, the so-called defence mechanism becomes offensive. That is, an exaggerated perception of persecution can inspire a response which, being premature, is an aggressive and unwarranted act.
Stigmatisation of any identification race-wise – which fear of an accusation of “racism” has achieved – acts to prevent Britons from defending themselves from any and all ethnocentric groups. Due to mass immigration Britain has overtaken Holland as the European country with the highest population density, exceeding 400 people per square kilometre. Such are the numbers that our nation can no longer feed itself. British culture and traditions are under severe threat, as is our native wildlife, and there is a profound effect on social cohesion to which our full prisons are testament. This qualifies, according to Lemkin’s very wide definition, as “genocide,” but this is an application he was unlikely to have intended. As with “racism,” whites may only be cast as perpetrators, never victims.
No survey of this kind can omit a reference to the author of probably the most hate-filled propaganda of all time, Ilya Ehrenburg. Notwithstanding, this was “white propaganda”: its source was plain. Black propaganda is propaganda with a false or hidden source. Its supremo was Sefton Delmer, whose activities were regarded with distaste by some members of the British Establishment even at the height of a “total war.” Delmer sent fake messages and gifts to the families of German soldiers after they had been killed, and planted rumours that high Nazi officials were paedophiles. With his ‘Big Bertha’ he emulated official German radio and tricked thousands of German countryfolk into abandoning their homes at the end of the war. This clogged up the roads, impeding the Allied advance, so was probably motivated by pure devilry. These and other shocking psychological tricks are laid bare in Delmer’s autobiographies, especially Black Boomerang.
One would think that with all the endless media wittering about “racism,” there would hardly be anything left to add. However there is one glaring omission – its origins have never been mentioned. Thus without a clear identification of its source and a public awareness of its bias, it qualifies as black propaganda.
That bias was quantified to some degree in a 1994 paper ‘An ethnic bias in scientific citations.’ Although the authors seem to have done their best to obscure it, the paper revealed that Jewish academics in the social sciences were around 40% more likely to cite other Jews than they were to quote the work of Gentiles. An almost identical result was found even when the field was restricted to “prejudice research.” This finding suggests that not only popular entertainment, but the entire corpus of academic work is skewed in favour of Jewish authors.
The second wave of feminism which began in the 1960s can also be regarded as black propaganda, where the ludicrous claims of mostly American Jewesses were repeated uncritically by journalists in the European press. Once again, its source was never made plain.
Another paper, ‘The paradox of declining female happiness,’ reported that despite dramatically increased opportunities, financial independence and much else which followed from the social changes feminism inspired, and which must perforce be to men’s detriment, women are now less happy than they were in the 1970s. Females cleave to authority, and the credence of the mainstream media is rarely questioned by the impressionable. Fluffy heads are filled with quasi-religious notions of “equality” and “the brotherhood of man” which wouldn’t fool a Bar Mitzvah candidate.
Emerging as a better known example of black propaganda is the Frankfurt School. This group of intellectuals was funded by the American Jewish Committee and the strong Jewish identity of the group was not made explicit, an omission which is now being rectified. The clique is widely credited with the inception of political correctness. That convoluted mindset referred to above, where “discrimination” is uniformly bad except against those who discriminate, may derive from an essay ‘Repressive Tolerance’ by Herbert Marcuse. According to Marcuse, the state exercises “repressive tolerance,” while he advocated “liberating tolerance.” This included “the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.” Whether the entire blight of political correctness can be laid at Marcuse’s feet is debatable, but he certainly predicted the coming repression, when truth becomes secondary to sentiment. It is said that Marcuse provided a specious rationale for the behaviour some individuals wanted to employ but which hitherto had been widely regarded as undemocratic and unfair.
Is it feasible that such notions, sometimes emerging in obscurity, rumble on until eventually they exert an all-pervading influence? We can point to the idea of the “melting pot” which first appeared as a play by Israel Zangwill, performed in New York in 1908. The theme resurfaced as a 1969 hit single by Blue Mink, was later adopted by Culture Club and later still, in 2008, by Boyzone. Its motif is “a beautiful dream” in which we “turn out coffee-coloured people by the score.” One is reminded of Aldous Huxley’s aphorism (in Brave New World Revisited) that anything too stupid to be said can always be sung.
The most striking, and disturbing, aspect to emerge from this analysis however is the following. Even against a declared enemy, the propriety of Delmer’s sowing of calumny and confusion by black propaganda was regarded as dubious. However today undeclared black propaganda operations are being waged in peacetime, and what can be said of a population which does that? It is not the behaviour of a symbiont, nor even that of a parasite. It is characteristic of an implacable enemy; in other words, the strategy of a Protagonist intent on harming the Opponent, regardless of how accommodating or generous the Opponent is.
So-called anti-racism is evil disguised by sanctimony. Hopefully the day will come when the words “racism” and “racist” will inspire a collective groan from everyone within their hearing.
“Anti-Semitism” (antisemitismus) is attributed to a German, Wilhelm Marr, in 1879. However its forerunner antisemitisch is reported as having being coined in 1860 by a German Jew, Moritz Steinschneider.
“Anti-Semitic” is a nonsense term because most Semites are not Jews (e.g. Arabs) and most Jews are not Semites (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews). The situation with Ashkenazi Jews is subject to qualification on grounds of population genetics, comparisons of DNA profiles etc., but it seems safe to assume that Ashkenazi Jews are significantly less Semitic than Sephardic Jews. Notwithstanding, my own view is that Jewishness is neither a race (in the genetic sense) nor a religion, but a strategy. This was also Revilo P. Oliver’s analysis.
We might regard “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Semitism” as precursors because while they are obfuscatory, they are not obfuscatory enough. In “racism” the ethos is considerably widened and no reference remains to the proponents of the term.
Kevin MacDonald and others have pointed out that Jews are the prime beneficiaries of multiculturalism. The following, by Edmund Connelly, was an out-take from the above article. Its source is ‘Understanding Hollywood Part III: Racial Role-Reversals’ in The Occidental Quarterly, Summer 2009:
Jews are most visible and vulnerable, and therefore least powerful, in racially and culturally homogeneous societies. They are less visible and vulnerable, and therefore more powerful, in racially and culturally pluralistic societies... Jews have promoted multiculturalism not merely for ethnic self-defense, but to attain ethnic power. Multiculturalism has not produced a society where no ethnic group is dominant. It has merely replaced white hegemony with Jewish hegemony, for Jews are the arbiters of multiculturalism. For Jews, black empowerment is not an end in itself, but a tool of Jewish empowerment. Black advancement empowers Jews by breaking down white ethnic solidarity and crowding whites out of positions of power and influence. Jews have created an imaginary world of black empowerment and white dispossession because they know that movies shape the real world. As Plato said, ‘Those who tell the stories rule society.’ The host of fictional black presidents has finally made possible a real one. But the puppet masters in both worlds remain the same.
Returning to the discussion of words however, the dead giveaway, demonstrating the extent to which our language is defined and controlled, is a term of yet more recent vintage, homophobia. One may harbour reserve about homosexual individuals, activities or demands, or at the other extreme, feel outright revulsion. Yet for this gamut of reactions only one label is ever applied by the media, a term which ascribes fear.
The proper meaning of the term homophobia is fear of man, i.e. fear of Homo sapiens, human beings.